PSYU2234- HD Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

PSYU2234: Summary Week 1: Introduction to Unit........................................................................................................................................... CONTENTS Weeks 1-2: Introduction to Social Psychology Research.......................................................

Description

PSYU2234: Summary CONTENTS Week 1: Introduction to Unit...........................................................................................................................................2 Weeks 1-2: Introduction to Social Psychology Research..................................................................................................2 Week 2: Introduction to Personality Research................................................................................................................3 Week 3: Psychodynamic Research Today........................................................................................................................4 Week 3: Neuropsychoanalysis and Dreams.....................................................................................................................5 Week 4: Trait Approaches to Personality.........................................................................................................................6 Week 4: Personality and Physical Health.........................................................................................................................7 Week 5: Personality and Addiction..................................................................................................................................8 Week 5: Crime and personality.......................................................................................................................................9 Week 6: Psychopathy.................................................................................................................................................... 10 Week 6: Dark Triad/Tetrad.............................................................................................................................................11 Week 8: Personality & Wellbeing.................................................................................................................................. 12 Week 8: Personality Assessment & Theory...................................................................................................................13 Week 9: Cognitive Errors/Biases in Social Judgment.....................................................................................................14 Week 9: Person Perception...........................................................................................................................................15 Week 10: Attributions...................................................................................................................................................16 Week 10: The Social Self................................................................................................................................................ 17 Week 11: Group Influence............................................................................................................................................. 18 Week 12: Emotion......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Week 12: Leadership, Power and Status....................................................................................................................... 21

WEEK 1: INT RODUCTION TO UNIT Psychology Scope Personality Individual behaviour differences consistent over time Social Individuals’ reactions to social situations

Similarities Draw on same theories Research relies on independent and dependent variables Relate to science of how people think, feel, and relate

 Criticism: describes the obvious? Common sense

Explanation “Opposites attract” sentiments

Relies on… Personal experience

“Rubbish” safeguard? No

Scientific approach

Using experiments to find true behavioural causes

Testing via publicly verifiable observations

Yes: falsifiability

Falsifiability: it must be possible to disprove a theory

WEEKS 1-2: INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH  Drawbacks to common sense: judgment errors  Reliance on heuristics (shortcuts) in making judgments  Limited insight to reasons for behaviours (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977)  Subjects paid $1 to lie enjoyed task more than subjects paid $20 (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)  Research questions come from:  Testing theories  Demonstrating phenomenon (Williams and Bargh (2008):  Curiosity physical  interpersonal  Testing techniques (Zadro et al (2004): cyberball/ball toss

 Steps in research process: 1. Research question (e.g., does x lead to y?) 2. Generate specific, directional hypotheses (e.g., x  y) 3. Operationalise (who, what, how?) 4. Design experiment/correlation study Design type Between-subjects Within-subjects Factorial Quasiexperimental Correlation

Explanation Ss experience one experimental condition Ss experience all experimental conditions Multiple categorical IVs tested Non-lab reproductible characteristics investigated w/out random assignment Measures r/ships b/w variables w/out manipulation

warmth)

Theory: principle(s) accounting for empirical findings

5. Collect data 6. Analyse data 7. Draw appropriate conclusions Pros Takes less time Fewer participants More efficient than single factor design Less resource-heavy Can study things difficult to study w/ED

Cons More expensive Takes longer Hard to impute causality Hard to impute causality

 Experimental designs allow for imputation of causality through comparison (e.g., treatment vs. control group)  Importance of knowing basic experimental design:  Determining if researchers demonstrate what they claim to  Considering how to conduct own study

2

WEEK 2: INTRODUCTION TO PERSONALITY RESEARCH  Defining personality:  Latin persona: mask, character  Distinctive, enduring patterns of thinking/feeling/acting characterising a person (Passer & Smith, 2019)  Psychological systems contributing to people’s enduring/distinctive patterns of experience/behaviour (Cervone & Pervin, 2019) Kluckhohn & Murray (1953): Human universals Group differences Individual differences

“Every human being is… …like every other human being …like some other human beings …like no other human beings.”

 Personality theories focus on common and specific features:  Idiographic approach: focus on individual uniqueness, qualitative data gained  Nomothetic approach: generalisations about people, numerical data gained  Timeline of personality theory: main behaviour determinants   

1930s: personality 1950s-60s: situation

 

1980s: both interact 2000s: complex interaction

 Personality paradox: personality is stable over time yet varies by situation  Theories focus on whole person, not parts: 

Synthesis of multiple psychology areas



Persons within situations

3

 Personality and psychopathology:  Personality research emerged from abnormal psychology  Breakdown of personalities (e.g., personality disorders)  Theory and implications for therapy  Personality and wellbeing:  Understanding “normal/healthy” functioning  Understanding what mental health/wellbeing requires  Personality development:  Nature vs. nurture: where do they begin and end?  Personality research and science: how do we find what is the case?  Michell (2000): critical appraisal of beliefs/theories Explanation

Logical

Empirica l



Testing theories’ logical coherence

Testing theories through observation

Psychopathology: study of experiences indicative of psychological impairment

How? Theoretical/conceptual analysis Finding:  Contradictions  Heuristics  Vagueness/ambiguity Replicating previous findings

Observing/studying personality: methods  Qualitative/quantitative data Explanation

How?

Pros Clinical applications Direction for further hypotheses

Cons Generalisability issues Subject to researcher bias

Case study

In-depth study of one person

Self-report

Self-explanatory

Questionnaires

Fast/easy

Social desirability bias/deception Lacking insight

Projective tests

Using ambiguous stimuli to gain personality insights

Rorschach test Thematic apperception test

Not subject to bias and deception issues

Interpretive issues

PET/fMRI scans

Not subject to bias and deception issues

Personality not understood enough to know how neurological/genetic factors relate (Saudino & Plomin, 1996)

Physiological Self-explanatory measures

Interviews

 Recent advances: remote behaviour sampling  Online identity management  Dark niches (e.g., trolling)  Ethnocentrism: problems w/generalisability (Markus, 2004)  Egocentrism: theories as self-reflection (biased or insightful?)

WEEK 3: PSYCHODYNAMIC RESEARCH TODAY  Many psychoanalysts reject some of Freud’s ideas (Shedler, 2006) Freud (1856-1939):  Unconscious processes (or nonconscious/implicit processes)  Personality as id, ego,  Blindsight: lacking awareness of what one sees (Weiskrantz, 1986) superego  Subliminal perception studies: presenting stimuli too quickly for conscious IDing  Un/conscious mind  Mere exposure effect: repeated mere exposure  increased attractiveness  Defense mechanisms (Kunst-Wilson & Zajonc, 1980)  psychosexuality  Emotional eating (Meyer & Waller, 1999; Waller & Barter, 2005)  Subliminal psychodynamic activation (SPA) studies: subliminal presentation evades defenses  Schizophrenic studies:  “Mummy & I are one” condition  less psychopathology (Silverman et al, 1983)  “M & I are the same”/”M is inside me”  psychopathology unchanged (Bronstein & Rodin, 1983)  Non-schizophrenic findings in MIO conditions:  Smoking/alcohol cessation (Palmatier & Bornstein, 1980; Shurtman et al, 1982)  Improved academic performance (Ariam & Siller, 1982)  Attachment/Oedipal complex:  Increased attachment anxiety, increased sexual attraction (Biton-Bereby et al, 2019)  Increased attachment anxiety, increased romantic jealously (Biton-Bereby et al, 2020)  Evaluation of SPA findings: controversial  Meta-analysis: SPA findings moderate/robust, effect stronger for males (Hardaway, 1990)

4

 Defense mechanisms: mental content prevented from becoming known  Ego wards off painful affects (Willick, 1995)  Broadly accepted, historically considered untestable  Types:  10 defences (A Freud, 1936)  Valliant’s 4 levels of defenses: psychotic  immature  neurotic/intermediate  mature  Problems: finding evidence  Retrospective reconstruction helps (A Freud, 1938)  Clinical case studies provide evidence Reaction formation

Explanation Repressed attitudes replaced by opposite conscious behaviour

Example Homophobia concealing homosexuality

Denial and information avoidance

Not acknowledging or believing distressing or threatening realities

Defensive personality styles in health settings:

Studies Adams et al, 1996, Bernat et al, 2001, Carnaghi et al, 2011, Weinstein et al, 2012 Long/short-term effects: (Kortte & Wegener, 2004)  Adaptive: + adjustment, - medical complications, recovery  Maladaptive: patient-delay, denying rehab/treatment need Repressive coping (Ginzburg et al, 2002) Repressors: 10-20% gen. pop.  Low trait anxiety, high defensiveness (Weinberger et al, 1979)  High phys. arousal (Myers, 2000; Brown et al, 1996)  Common in older adults; + happiness (Erskine et al, 2015) Vigilance-avoidance theory (Derakshan et al, 2007) Blunters/monitors (Miller, 1987): scanning vs. ignoring  Ms perceive higher disease severity (Constant et al, 2005)  Tailoring health info for Bs (Williams-Piehota et al, 2005)

5

WEEK 3: NEUROPSYCHOANALYSIS AND DREAMS  Project for a Scientific Psychology (Freud, 1895/1950): basing provisional psych. ideas on organic substructures  Dream interpretation:  Biological frustrations (i.e., thirst) (Minnesota Starvation Experiment, 1944-5)  Psychical conflict (fighting against own wishes i.e., repression, censorship, disguise (Boag, 2006))  Latent content (censored, primary process) and manifest content (literal subject matter)  Freud: dreams = meaningful  Dreams and REM sleep: 

Aserinsky & Kleitman (1953):  Occurs in 90-100min cycles  Pons as active when awake (paradox)  REM dreams vivid/visual, NREM not



Hobson & McCarley (1977):  Activation-synthesis model: dreams due to brain stem activity in REM sleep  Dreams: motivationally neutral, meaningless

Hobson & Pace-Schott (1999): bizarreness due to lost organising capacity REM sleep behaviour disorder: wife strangled during bad dream in 2009 Dreaming can be independent of REM sleep:  Vivid dreaming prior to REM sleep (Solms, 1999; 2000)  Brainstem lesions do not eliminate dreaming (Bischof & Bassetti, 2004; Solms, 2000)  Damaged mesolimbic-mesocortical dopamine pathway  dreams cease, REM unaffected (Solms, 2000)  Dopamine/dream connection suggests connection b/w dreams/desires  Affective Neuroscience (Panksepp, 1998, 2015):  Primary emotional systems: seeking, lust, fear, rage, care, panic/grief, play  MMDP associated with seeking (appetitive foraging)  Evidenced by within-/cross-species neural circuitry  Drug dreams and Freudian theory: addictive drugs hijack native reward system  Biological drive frustration paradigm (Colace, 2014)  Freudian theory: drug addicts will dream of taking drugs during withdrawals  Drug dreams x nicotine/alcohol/coke/amphetamine/heroin, x gambling (Colace, 2004, 2014, 2020)  Hobson (2013) concludes Freudian dream theory obsolete  Neuropsychoanalysis links psychoanalysis/neurosciences (Solms & Turnbull, 2011)  Studies instinctual-emotional brain networks  Subjective data not solid foundation for psychoanalysis as science  Psychoanalysis x neuropsychoanalysis:  Neuroscience irrelevant to psychoanalysis (Blass & Carmeli, 2007, 2015)  Criticism: biologistic/reductionist   

6

WEEK 4: TRAIT APPROACHES TO PERSONALITY  Nomothetic approach: traits = dimensions, qualitative measurement  Trait approaches:  Personality: A Psychological Interpretation (Allport, 1937) Trait: a tendency  Cardinal, central, secondary traits consistent across time and place  Idiographic vs. nomothetic distinction  Focus on unique traits  Eysenck’s 3 Factor model:  Extra/introversion, neuroticism, psychoticism  Biological bases of traits:  Ascending reticular activation system: high arousal = introversion  Limbic system = neuroticism (anxiety)  Five Factor Model (Costa & McCrae, 1990, 2004, 2015) - OCEAN  Lexical hypothesis: traits identified through language  Traits highly heritable, enviro. Influence shape expression (McCrae, 2004)  Biologically based universals:  Age-changes: ↓ NEO, ↑ OC by 30yo – maturation (McCrae, 2002; Terracciano et al, 2010)  By location?  FFM replicated in 50+ societies (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005)  Big 2 dimensions (prosociality, industriousness) for Tsimane Bolivian people (Gurven et al, 2013)  Traits shape culture (McCrae, 2004): e.g., Western vs. Eastern cultures  Challenges:  Generational/cohort effects: N/E increased over 50 years  Acculturation studies: immigrants w/similar E/O/A scores to new country  May be accounted for by selective migration  Personality disorders: enduring reactional patterns, culturally deviant, pervasive/inflexible, lead to distress Cluste r A B C





Characterisation

Personality disorders

Odd, eccentric Dramatic, emotional, erratic Fearful, anxious

Paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal Antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic Avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive

Categorical model distinguishes clinical diagnoses qualitatively in DSM-V  Shortcomings (Widiger & Trull, 2007; Schmeck et al, 2013):  High comorbidity rates of PDs  Many ways to diagnose same PD (high heterogeneity)  Commonest dx: PD not otherwise specified  Low inter-rater reliability (different Dx given to same presentation) Dimensional model: PDs as maladaptive trait variances merging into normality/each other (FFM assumed) DSM-V traits Openness Conscientiousnes s Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism



Low n/a Impulsivity Avoidant Manipulativeness n/a

High Eccentricity Rigid perfectionism Attention-seeking Submissiveness Separation insecurity

Clinical implications of FFM on PDs:  Greater uniformity for treatment options (e.g., interpersonal goals for E/A, emotional stability goals for N)  Psychotherapy x pharmacotherapy  FFM assessment scales for PDs (Crego et al, 2018)  Unclear clinical utility (Crego et al, 2016)

7

WEEK 4: PERSONALITY AND PHYSICAL HEALTH  Risk and resilience as predictors of physical health:  Diathesis-stress model: predisposition + environmental stress  Influence on behaviour, coping/appraising, physiology A

B D

C

Characterisation Competitive, time-pressured, combative, ambitious Opposite of type A Distressed

Cooperative, unassertive, emotional suppression, compliance, helplessness, hopelessness

Studies Coronary heart disease:  ↑ elevation in S/DBP in structured interviews (but not Jenkins Activity Survey) (Contrada, 1989)  Systematic review: inconsistent evidence b/w tA x CHD (Kuper et al, 2002)  No association (Sykes et al, 2002; Nadi et al, 2008; Ikeda et al, 2008) Coronary heart disease  B-high personalities had least DBP reactivity (Contrada, 1989) Around 20% gen. pop. Mechanisms:  Association b/w tD and unhealthy lifestyle (O’Connor et al, 2008)  Pessimism, poor treatment adherence Cardiovascular disease:  tD a vulnerability factor in CVD progression (O’Dell et al, 2011)  tD x major adverse cardiac events = positive association  tD x health-related quality of life = negative association Coronary heart disease:  Some association b/w tD x poor clinical/patient-reported outcomes (Kupper & Denollet, 2018)  tD predicts longer acute brain dysfunction (Matsuishi et al, 2019) Pathways unclear Cancer-prone, suggested by Temoshok (1987) High arousal may reduce immune system function (Temoshok, 1987) Anxiety/neuroticism as protective against cancer (Kissen & Eysenck, 1962)  Correlation/causation, retrospective No association b/w:  N/E x cancer in Swedish prospective twin study (Hansen et al, 2005)  N/E x cancer risk/survival in Swedish/Finnish epidemiological study (Nakaya et al, 2010)  tC traits x cancer outcomes (Price et al, 2001) Inconsistent findings (Blatný & Adam, 2008) No association b/w cancer risk/mortality x personality (Jokela et al, 2014)

Repressors/repressive defensiveness and physical health:  Poor physical health (Myers, 2010)  RC as cause/effect of breast cancer development indeterminate (McKenna et al, 1999)  increased risk of death, myocardial infarction (Denollet et al, 2008)  Repressors unlikely to report distress  Underestimating impacts on heart of stress, noncompliance, physiological stress?  Poor heart attack survival outcomes in high-contact interventions (Frasure-Smith et al, 2002)  Association b/w RC x cardiovascular diseases (Mund & Mitte, 2012)  RC consequence of cancer Dx  Personality and dementia:  Change: Dementias: syndrome of  Inhibition loss, ↑ apathy, suspicion, aggression thinking and social  ↑ rigidity, egocentricity, ↓ emotional control (Balsis et al, 2005) symptoms interfering  High N/low C profiles: poor health choices, high depression risk, worse health profiles – with normal functioning which are dementia risk factors (Aschwander et al, 2020)  High N x dementia risk associated, low C x DR a predicted di...